Recommendation for a good base to explore England

How exciting to be planning such a lovely adventure! England is a walker's paradise and there are so many, many places you can go and base yourselves for a month-long stay and enjoy beautiful walks. The Cotswolds are very popular and definitely provide a lot of opportunities for walks. But there are so many other places too - The Lake district, The Yorkshire Dales, The Peak district, Devon, Dorset, Shropshire...the possibilities are endless. I have personally enjoyed the Chilterns/Thames valley and Dorset areas immensely. You can even split your stay and stay in two different locations if you want to. Enjoy the planning and the trip.

welcome to England!!

So very many choices that might work.

Please give us a bit more help - besides walking what else interests you? Mining? Farming? Boating? Rock climbing? Particular ages of history (which ones)? Urban or suburban or rural?

Then we may be able to help more...

As you have a whole month I’d be inclined to book several stays of a week each in different locations, then spend the week exploring that area. I’d recommend Northumberland, Cornwall, Devon, Yorkshire Dales but there are so many other areas that I’ve never been to and don’t know at all. The Cotswolds are always very popular on here and you could certainly include that area.

I have said before that you could throw a dart at a map of the UK and go and stay wherever the dart lands and have an excellent week's stay as a tourist. So we could all sit here and give you a long list of possible places to stay.

I think the best thing to do is have a think about what particularly attracts you to staying a month here.

Do you want any time in any cities or spend all your time in more rural areas?

Do you want to concentrate on walking?

Is food and drink important to you?

Do you want to be in coastal areas, upland areas? National Parks?

Are you interested in history? Industrial archaeology?

Castles, stately homes, gardens?

Answers to these questions will help guide us to recommend suitable places for you. But I would agree that I would look for 4 places to spend a week in, rather than one spot for a month.

One idea, if the focus is on walking, would be to book 4 almost back to back trips to HF houses in different parts of the UK - whichever you choose trying to work logically round the country.

That way you get good places to stay, guided walking, but the ability to dip in and out of the walks if you wanted to use certain days for more general sightseeing.

They organise transfers to and from local rail stations, if you want that ease of mind. Or equally make your own way to each house.

www.hfholidays.co.uk

I have travelled a lot in Great Britain and you can find things to do almost anywhere. You can find walking trails almost anywhere. We all have our favourite places to walk. 1 month in 1 place will mean you miss out on a lot of the country. England alone is the size of Oregon or New York states. The ideas of a week in 4 places is a good one. I have some something similar on a number of trips. It allows variety for the walks and what to see. Driving is a lot slower in the UK than in the US so 30 miles on google maps does not take 30 minutes; assume closer to 60 minutes.

Personally I wouldn't pick the Cotswolds. For places with history and walks, I would recommend Cornwall, Dartmoor, Kent or Sussex, the Peak district, Yorkshire Dales, Northumberland. That is just England; consider a week in Wales or in Scotland (like Inverness).

There is so much choice. Pick what you want to do besides walking and then select an area that has that and walking trails.

I agree about eliminating the Cotswolds, and instead would consider the Peak District, the Yorkshire Dales or North Yorkshire, which are filled with numerous hiking opportunities. I have a particular fondness for The Peak, as it is relatively untouristed (at least by Americans) and is smaller than other areas, so it's easier to get to places. There are really wonderful walking opportunities there. I stayed in Castleton earlier this year for 5 nights and loved it.

But the Dales and North Yorkshire are also quite beautiful with lovely green hills and valleys and moors covered with heather. North Yorkshire is a bit more wild (imo) than the Dales, so it depends on what you are looking for. I personally love North Yorkshire. I stayed in a cottage in the middle of nowhere about 8 miles from Helmsley, and had an incredible time.

And then there's also Northumberland, which sits long the northeast coast of England and has some absolutely wonderful villages and towns to visit, including Holy Island. It's a truly marvelous place. As others have said, you really can't go wrong anyplace in England.

Driving is a lot slower in the UK than in the US so 30 miles on google maps does not take 30 minutes; assume closer to 60 minutes.

I disagree. I spent almost 6 weeks in England earlier this year (mostly driving) and found that Google was quite accurate. In fact, I planned out my driving trips the night before using Google and was always pleasantly surprised to arrive when it said I would. I can't say the same for Scotland, but England driving using Google Maps went very well.

I don't think Colleen was impugning the accuracy of Google Maps, just pointing out that the time estimate for a 30-mile trip can be a lot longer in England than in many places in the US. But perhaps I have misinterpreted her.

I agree. Use Google maps to estimate driving times as distance can be misleading. Eg Bournemouth is only 75 miles from my house but Google maps suggests over 2hrs to get there which is accurate in my experience.

Google maps does seem to be fairly accurate in England for driving times, maybe not as good as the AA or RAC route planners (which are what I would also use) but pretty good.

As an example when Mardee was here in the spring there was debate over the fastest road from Haltwhistle to the Carlisle rental car depot- either via Carlisle Airport or Warwick Bridge. Google maps varied depending on the time of day, but the difference was always marginal and inconclusive. Less than I as a local would have expected- to me the Airport road would always be the faster as it is a straight and very fast road, Warwick Bridge a windy road with varying speed limits. I think Google was capturing very well the road congestion at various times of the day in urban Carlisle (the last 2 miles or so) which offset the speed further east.

The problem in my part of the world isn't as much given times as much as how the tourists drive. All route planners assume you are driving to the road conditions and speed limits, whereas the tourists are crawling along looking at the scenery or just plain unfamiliar with their vehicles. Never more so than on the narrower roads where too often they don't know how to reverse in a straight line or the vehicle width (or even how to find reverse gear quite often). That's what holds people up.

The journey planners will tell you that from where I live to junction 40 on the M6 is 43 miles on 60 mph roads- 53 minutes as I look at the AA planner now. 53 minutes is a sensible time given the road and varying speed limits - you should on an average day make it in 45 minutes. But it is a road you can hammer down. At one stage I worked for a company who set the time for that journey as 30 minutes (which my boss could do any day) and you were expected to meet that. The fastest I ever made it was 34 minutes.

I don't think Colleen was impugning the accuracy of Google Maps, just pointing out that the time estimate for a 30-mile trip can be a lot longer in England than in many places in the US. But perhaps I have misinterpreted her.

acraven, that's very possible. I guess I read it as saying someone should add 30 minutes onto Google's estimate but that was probably my mistake. I do think that Google can be inaccurate in Scotland. Or as is probably likely, Google's time is based on how locals drive and not tourists, as Stuart mentioned. And I do think that is a factor.

We did a 28 day drive tour of England and South Wales in 2017 and visited many wonderful places.
After London you will probably have more than three weeks to explore. I would suggest that you select at least three places as bases for exploring.
1) The Cotswolds- We stayed six nights at the Volunteer Inn in Chipping Campden. We used two full days to do the Cotswolds and did three day trips to Oxford, Blenheim Palace and Stratford Upon Avon.
2) You could use Bath to explore the area southwest of the Cotswolds, but probably not for a week. You could visit Wells, Glastonbury, Avebury and perhaps Bristol.
3) York is wonderful, I highly recommend it. You can explore the Yorkshire and the surrounding area.
4) Salisbury or Winchester is another area, however that area of England generally had heavier traffic.
5) On the other side of London, Canterbury and Cambridge are great.

I believe that Google maps uses the average speed of a selection of motorists (Google map users) to work out times. Looking at the ETA every so often is a good indicator of problems ahead.

For example, Traveling back last summer from holiday in SW England to the London area we suddenly noticed that the ETA was going back by one minute every minute even though we doing 70mph at the time! Further investigation showed the motorway (highway) about 50 miles ahead was pretty much stationary due to an accident. We found another way home. I think this dynamic timing makes google maps very useful.

My comment about google maps speeds is that for a North American they can be misleading. In North American, single track roads are almost unheard of for a public road compared to places like Cornwall, Scotland, Ireland and parts of the dales and Peak District where they are very common. A twisty, single track road with stonewalls or hedges lining it and 2-way traffic may have a speed limit of 60, but when you aren't used to the road and cannot see what is coming towards you, it is very hard to drive. Even 2 lane roads are trickly because they can be very narrow; much narrower than any NA road. Having a car coming towards you is scary so your natural instinct is to slow down. I take the view I am safer driving below the speed limit (not on major roads) and keeping an eye on the cars behind you. If there are 2 or 3, pull over safely and let them pass. They know the road and how to drive it at the speed limit.

All of this makes driving a challenge and very tiring. Here in Canada I think nothing of a 1 or 2 hour drive to someplace for a day trip. The driving is like driving an A or M road, generally with a lot less cars. Driving in the UK and Ireland, I use bases but limit day trips to a max of an hour. It is better to have more than 1 base than struggle with long drives.

Wow, thanks for the suggestions and commentary on roads and speeds! We drove around Ireland last June and are familiar with those narrow, slow country roads. I am re-thinking staying in one place. I don't want to spend most of my time in the car, but also don't want to pack up and move every 1-3 days as we often do. So maybe one week in 3 or 4 locations is the way to go. As far as interests, we are active, but in our 70s, so enjoy walking and biking, some museums and castles, historical sites (English ancestors have been traced back to the 1500s. Can I move there?! Only half joking.) I'll look into some of the other areas mentioned.

Smithkow, my husband and I have had great visits to my ancestral towns and villages in England and Scotland. Have you considered choosing a base near your ancestral locations?
Cheryl

Yes, I should look into that, good idea! I know some ancestors resided in Sanderstead Court. Family lore says it was was torn down for Heathrow, but Wikipedia says it was destroyed by fire.

Oh, it's always a shame when a ancestral location is no longer a charming village. Look on another branch of the family tree!

It couldn't have been destroyed for Heathrow as that is the other side of London, far too far away.
However Biggin Hill Airfield (RAF Biggin Hill) is not very far away, and the area was littered with airfields in WW2 so maybe part of the grounds was used as one. Maybe the fire was when the RAF was there- an officers mess maybe.
Unfortunately that part of the Wikipedia article is uncited, but maybe the Biggin Hill Museum have answers on that.
{EDIT- Personally I am very surprised that every source I can see just says '1944' for the fire. As a historian that feels like an incomplete fact has been endlessly copied, as it can not be hard to find the exact date. That troubles me, as you often find that on delving down 'facts; like that often become questionable.
I have a similar case near me where a manor house burned down during the war years, and various sources said it was either a school or in use by the RAF at the time. Well it couldn't have been both and that took a lot of investigation to find the true facts.]
The much closer Gatwick Airport, opened just pre-War, was used by the RAF in WW2 (rather like Manchester Airport or Ringway).
Gatwick was opened as a relief airport to Croydon Airport (the terminal of which survives as a hotel, also a museum there, and opened by the Royal Flying Corps in WW1, then the main London airport before Heathrow).
Not all worthwhile history is old history going back centuries.

What you need is the local newspaper to tell you about the fire and the preceding WW2 history of the place. One source on line says that the RAF use was pre WW2 but after 1928.

I was wondering how anyone could be traced back WITH CERTAINTY to the 1500's as it is very rare to get surviving records that good- you can make presumptions but rarely prove it that early.

However you are on the verge of the lovely North Downs National Park there (an area not often visited by folk here) so aside from further investigations, there is very good reason to go there.

Thanks “isn31c” for further info. I reviewed the family records more closely and saw that the note was “London Airport“ so someone assumed Heathrow., I looked up the closest airport to Sanderstead and found the old Croyden one, but no indication it was built on site of the manor house. Since it’s long gone, not worth pursuing. However Wikipedia cited the ancestor who came to Mass. in the 1600’s and the map of the area came up with the family name on some buildings in the town. So maybe it’s worth a day trip to go to the old parish and poke around the cemetery.
Right now, I have to focus on which three or four areas of England to base our touring.

From the British Newspaper Archive- the fire was on 19 April 1944- soldiers (not RAF) were there. Initially stated to be due to a dropped cigarette, a month later that was revised by the No 21 War Office Selection Board to be "due to enemy action"

Sources Croydon Times and Surrey County Mall 22 April 1944 Page 5 and 20 May 1944 page 5.

You can update Wikipedia if you wish.

There is also this file at The National Archives- https://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/details/r/C2374701 which revises it again to be "of doubtful origin"

I suspect that at in May 1944 white lies were told in the name of national morale.